[MD] False Messiah

[David M]

DMB

Your argument seems to amount to: dogmatism is bad,
theist are dogmatic (if they are not they can't be theists),
therefore theism is bad. This argument is utterly unconvincing
and flawed. You quote Wilber who has a particular take
on the history of thought, he therefore takes a simplified
version of history, you really ought to go and read some
real historians for a less conceptualised and more complex
and accurate version of the history of thought. I feel that
your views here simply reflect a lack of experience, knowledge
and understanding of what you are discussing. You want to
draw nice neat lines when real life/history is more complex.
I for one don't buy it.

DM


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "david buchanan" <dmbuchanan at hotmail.com>
To: <moq_discuss at moqtalk.org>
Sent: Friday, March 31, 2006 11:41 PM
Subject: Re: [MD] False Messiah


> Scott and all MOQers:
>
> Before I get into it, I want to thank Scott for taking the time and 
> spending
> the energy....
>
> Scott said to dmb:
> ...you are hell-bent on treating as enemies those who should be your 
> allies
> in this struggle, namely theists who support intellectual freedom and 
> social
> justice -- and their name is legion. Apparently, anyone who says they have
> "faith in God" has -- for you -- no redeeming social or intellectual role. 
> I
> would call that prejudice, based, like all prejuduce, on severely static
> thinking.
>
> dmb replies:
> Those who support intellectual freedom and social justice aren't the
> problem. Like I already said to you, there is plenty of room for some
> interesting religious thinkers here. Bring them. But post-modern
> philosophers of religion are not the problem and if the names you've 
> dropped
> so far are any indication, its a bit of a stretch to call them theists. 
> And
> as I understand the terms "Faith" and "God", its hard to reconcile "faith 
> in
> God" with intellectual freedom and intellectual values. To make that work,
> you'd have to alter the meaning of those terms to the extent that they are
> no longer relevant to my criticisms of theism and faith. I would describe
> Ken Wilber and Joseph Cambpell as non-theistic philosophers of religion, 
> for
> example. I have quoted both of them favorably many, many times. Obviously, 
> I
> think the MOQ takes on the issue from an intellectual perspective too. My
> purpose here is certainly not to rule out such a possibility. Quite the
> opposite. I would even go so far as to say that you're trying to make that
> same distinction. We just disagree about where certain lines are drawn. As 
> I
> understand the term, one can't be a theist without being a literalist.
>
> dmb quoted the dictionary:
> Merriam-Webster Online says, "Faith" is defined as 1. allegiance to duty 
> or
> a person: LOYALTY: fidelity to one's promises: sincerity of intentions. 2.
> belief and trust in and loyalty to God: belief
> in the traditional doctrines of a religion: firm belief in something for
> which there is no proof: complete trust. 3. something that is believed
> especially with strong conviction. - in faith: without doubt or question:
> VERILY. Now I suppose you're gonna say the standard dictionary definition
> "belittles" the term? Who is being absurd here? And do I dare make the
> obvious point that people of faith might tend to prefer a more 
> self-serving
> definition of the word?
>
> Scott replied:
> No, the dictionary definition does not belittle the word. Pirsig sure 
> does,
> though, when he calls it "a willingness to believe in falsehoods". 
> Further,
> the Christian thinker goes a lot deeper into the question "what is faith"
> than a dictionary will, just as a philosopher of science, say, will not 
> stop
> at a dictionary definition of science, or as a MOQist will not stop at a
> dictionary definition of 'quality'.
>
> dmb says:
> I'm not saying we should STOP with the dictionary. I'm just saying its a
> good place to START and that defying the dictionary is sloppy. And let me
> remind you that I was quoting the dictionary against your charge that 
> Pirsig
> and I are using some unusual and prejudiced definition. I don't think 
> there
> is any important difference between Pirsig's "willingness to believe
> falsehoods" and the dictionary's "firm belief in something for which there
> is no proof".  Twain's view that "Faith is believing what you know ain't 
> so"
> differs from these only in the level of funniness. In any case, I quoted 
> the
> dictionary as a relatiy check against your bizarre definition of faith as
> something that can stand up to reason, which is approximately the opposite
> of what it means in normal, common sense reality.
>
> Scott said to dmb:
> No. (Scott doesn't "think the conflict between faith and reason was
> something that developed much later than 200AD?") The famous phrase "what
> has Athens to do with Jerusalem" (that is, the side that sees faith and
> reason as being in conflict) dates from the late 2nd century. Most of the
> Greek and Latin Fathers (e.g., Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine,
> Evagrius Ponticus, the Cappadocians) argued for reason, and won the
> argument.
>
> dmb says:
> Well, I'd point out that this thread started out as a discussion of the
> neo-Victorian moral decline in the present period, but I'd like to take 
> this
> as an opportunity to get at what I was saying about the false messiah as 
> it
> relates to theism and literalism in the history of the church. You may
> recall that I had said a few things about that central heresy in this
> thread's opening post. As I understand it, Augustine, for all his
> intellectuality, still supported the idea of Christ as a unique historical
> figure and supported the laws against saying otherwise. As I understand 
> it.
> Origen, like Eckhart and others, is one of the figures who were condemned
> for this heresy, the heresy of the non-literalist and the non-theists. As
> Ken Wilber puts it,..
>
> "For all of Augustine's undoubted brilliance - for all of that, he cannot
> shake his dualistic dogma that this world is merely a preparation for the
> next world; he is locked into the myth of the FUTURE resurrection of the
> body, not its present divinization by a change in percepton; and thus even
> such an ardent devotee of Augustine as Paul Tillich can summarize his view
> as: 'On the one hand, there is the city of God, on the other the city of
> earth or the devil.' This is no spiritual ontology; this is mythic
> disscocitation.    I do not mean to pin this dualism soley on Augustine; 
> it
> is a mythic dissociation inherent in the worldview which, for other 
> reasons,
> he felt compelled to embrace. Augustine, I am tempted to say, is actually
> the very best one can possibly do with the Plotinian system if it must be
> strained into a mythic worldview. But both Augustine's fans and detractors
> have pointed to this unstable dualism in this system, and to his
> 'otherworldly' bent, the stamp of frustrated Ascent. And if 'Augustine is
> the foundation of everything the West had to say,' well then, everything 
> the
> West had to say was; frustrated Ascent, spiritus interruptus. And thus no
> true Descent, no true divinization of this Earth, of this body of this
> life."
>
> See, even this is a kind of literalism. Despite the fact that Christian
> mystics tend to love Augustine, he was stil advocating a transcendent God, 
> a
> supernatural God. And it only gets worse from here.
>
> I would also point to the fusion of Christian theology and Aristotle's
> physics. (Aquinas and the age of scholasticism.) There is a literalistic
> assumption in the very attempt to fuse spiritual and physical truth in 
> such
> a way. And, as far as the conflict between faith and reason, the big
> problems really began when physics changed and the spiritual truths did 
> not.
> They were no longer in sync once guys like Copernicus came along. This is
> what I mean in suggesting that the problems began much later than 200AD. 
> But
> more to the point, no matter how subtle or sever the level of literalism,
> the problem comes in treating spiritual achievers as a threat to religion
> rather than the point of religion. Again, Ken Wilber. The emphasis and
> parenthetical info is his...
>
> "...the mythic-military Christian empire put tolerance - never a strong
> point in mythic structures - virtually out of the question. Any outspoken
> person who evidenced a structure of consciousness higher than the
> mythic-rational was, correctly enough, viewed as a POLITICAL threat and
> condmned, in effect, for treason.    The condemnation was often pandemic;
> the structure of Reason (and science) were condemned because they demanded
> EVIDENCE (reason was therefore allowed only in service of Dogma). The
> psychic level of nature-nation mysticism was condemned because it brought
> God 'too much into' this world, it 'dragged God down' from His celestial
> throne and the Heavenly City above. Subtle-level mysticism was condemned, 
> or
> at best barely tolerated, because it brought the sould UP TOO CLOSE to 
> God.
> And the Church becam absolutely apoplectic if anybody expressed a
> causal'level intuion of supreme identity with Godhead - the Inquistion 
> would
> burn Giordano Bruno at the stake and condemn the theses of Meister Dckhart
> on such grounds.    But that was on old story for causal-level Realizers 
> at
> the hands of mythic believers, stanrting with Jesus of Nazareth, whose own
> causal-level realizaton (I and the Father are One) wold not be treated
> kindly... His reply that 'we all ALL sons (and daughters) of God' was lost
> on the crowd, and that realization led him, as it would al-Hallaj and 
> Bruno
> and Origen and a long line of subsequestn Realkizers, to a grisly death 
> for
> both political and religious reasons..."
>
> Scott said to dmb:
> Do you recall that Sam preached a sermon saying that God does not exist? 
> Yet
> he is a theist. My point is that what one can squeeze into a dictionary
> definition may not hold up as one goes more deeply into the matter. In 
> fact,
> the dictionary authors clearly left out such thinkers about God as the
> Pseudo-Dionisius (c. 500) and others who said that God was beyond being -- 
> that one cannot apply the category 'existence' to God. In other words, 
> your
> attack upon theism is based on accepting this definition literally.
>
> dmb says:
> Yes, my attack on "theism" uses the standard definition of that term. I
> think this is a good thing and that perhaps some people would be easier to
> understand if they did the same. Sam's not here to defend himself, but 
> since
> you mentioned it, I have to object. A theist that doesn't believe in God? 
> At
> the very best, this is a sloppy and confusing way to describe one's
> position. I could describe myself as an atheist who believes in God, but
> wouldn't that be a rather stupid way to put it even if it were true? I 
> think
> so. Besides, you've probably noticed that I disgree with Sam about most
> things, especially in this area. As far as psuedo-Dionysius goes, well of
> course he's not in the dictionary. I think your efforts to deny the 
> meaning
> of these basic concepts only makes your argument look wierd and silly. I'm
> definately not impressed that move, Mr. Roberts.
>
> dmb said to Scott:
> The objection to faith and theism and literalism does NOT just apply to
> fundamentalists. And so those who would assert that God is a metaphor for 
> a
> mystery are NOT the problem and that's exactly what my criticism are aimed
> at. I'm opposed to the notion of a supernatural creator, of a unique
> historical incarnation of that God, of the idea of God as an all powerful
> agent who intervenes in human history and the notion of God as other.
>
> Scott replied:
> You are making my point. You are taking these descriptions of God 
> literally,
> and oppose them. Thinking theists do not take these descriptions 
> literally.
>
> dmb says:
> No, I'm not taking them literally. I'm criticizing those who do. Those who
> don't take it literally are not the targets of my criticism. Again, this 
> is
> the distinction I've been trying to make - for years. As I tried to show 
> in
> this post, via Wilber, thinking theists certainly do take it literally, 
> even
> the brilliant thinkers who founded the West's theistic Christianity. As I
> understand it, non-literal, non-dual, non-theists are relatively rare in 
> the
> West because it went wrong so long ago, pretty much from the start. This 
> is
> the heroic blasphemy I've been getting at all along. Again Ken Wilber...
>
> "The Church would produce MANY great philosophers (reason), and MANY great
> psychic and subtle mystics, but no matter how much these realizers tried 
> to
> downplay the myths, but no matter how much they allegorized them or 
> as-iffed
> them or interpreted them AWAY, there was always the one fundamental dogma
> that hung like a weight around their attempts to transcend, that crashed
> down on their sholders and pinned them to the ground and never but never
> budged an inch; THE UTTERLY UNIQUE AND NONREPRODUCIBLE REALIZATION OF
> JESUS."
>
> Scott said to dmb:
> Dictionaries tell us what the static patterns are. To defy them is to 
> think
> dynamically. Interesting that you consider the dynamic to be bullshit. 
> Well,
> you did say "almost always". But of course the exceptions you will make 
> are
> those that bolster your opinions, while those who question those opinions
> are not allowed to make exceptions. Very convenient.
>
> dmb says:
> Defying the dictionary is dynamic? Oh, please. You're not creatively 
> bending
> the rules. You're just being sloppy, confusing and a bit scatterbrained 
> too.
> (Did you notice that I've deleted your irrelevant tangets on neo-Darwinism
> and the preferences of particles.) If you will recall, this thread began 
> by
> making a case IN FAVOR of those who would creatively break the rules, IN
> FAVOR of those who would defy static dogma of the theists. As in the case 
> of
> the theist who doesn't believe in God, I'm not rejecting these exceptions,
> I'm just rejecting that sort of non-sense and other contradictions. You've
> all but ignored my central point about the dynamic contrarians and seem
> quite willing to avoid any discussion about the neo-Victorians. You've
> ignored my central point about the "preferences of particles", which I 
> made
> despite the fact that it is outside the scope of this thread. You've taken
> my criticisms of the current Republican administration as if they were
> directed at psuedo-Dionysius and Origen. You've defied common sense and
> dictionary definitions in order to make your points and have otherwise
> ignored, evaded, confused or obfuscated the issues at hand. That, my 
> friend,
> is very far away from being a work of art.
>
> Thanks again,
> dmb
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> moq_discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/